Unit 8 The Only Way To Stop Crime Is To Increase Punishments Level 5 UKCBC

MAIN BODY

As the title stated that, the punishment is the only way to prevent from crime, but it is not probably true, because why people wait to get punished. They should understand that this is not they way to deal with things, they have conscious to recognize what is true and what is wrong. For example, when a person violates a traffic rule, they know that they would be fined for that but still there are some people who would like to perpetrate the crime. There are several ways to punish people who are acting wrong, paying fine is one of the way to punish wrongdoer. The court orders the culprits to pay the penalty when they have enacted a crime on lesser scale of punishment. For an instance, disobey the civic rules, like spitting on the road, when an individual person have commit an action then they have to pay the fine which is prescribed by the law of order. If they are regular to commit such offences then they have to pay higher and this is an deterrent in hopes that they learn to obey the rules because they never wanted to spend their earned money to the system by such silly actions. There is a restorative justice which uses an approach to justice that focuses on the needs of the victims, they has an active role in punishment. For an instance, if a criminal were destroyed a store then store owner has the right to take part in the punishment process and demand the criminal to help them to clean up the store and refurnish the store again by paying them all the damage. Other then that, community service is another way to punish a lawbreaker, this one is also included in low scale punishment but failure to do so may result in fine and jail time. This gives them a chance to rehabilitate the criminals and it is a donated service.

The one of the major punishments comes under sentencing which is an important aspect in the criminal justice. It is a punishment which suspects receive when they have been proven guilty for the crime, and this has a vast spectrum of punishment ranges from community service and fines which is described above. There are some other penalization which gives the justice from fines to incarnation and sentenced to death. Punishment and sentencing are to be considered when there are some complicated issues are discussed. But there is not a perfection in the laws that gives a perfect justice regarding a particular case. A sentence forms when a final and explicit act of ruling made by a judge, the act may involve a decree of captivity and /or a fine or other punishments. Giving a punishment is an imposition of something negative or unpleasant of a person in response to a behaviour deemed wrong by a law. In sentencing there are three reasons for punishments, deterrence, retributivism and incapacitation.

Deterrence philosophy

Deterrence is a philosophy that goes to says that criminal itself prevent to commit a crime, that means specific deterrence theory states that when a delinquent is punished and released after completing their duration for imprisonment they would less like to do the wrong things again. They also have a reasonable thinking that what they can do better to avoid the wrong thinking. For an illustration, a robber was not always wanted rob any bank, but their drug habits drawn them on wrong path cause they didn't had any way to source of earning from where they can get money, so they chose a simple way, without considering the consequences. But after completion of their punishment, they realize that they can start a new life but will not do the same thing again as before. So, punishment is may be good way to stop crime to make the people realize that they have committed such a blunder mistakes, which will have bad impact on their lives. On the other hand, punishments are not always a right way to stop crime cause deterrence effects are limited, because the one who is performing the wrong action, they don't have the ability to take the decision about benefits and loses of committing a crime. The deterrence theory is not applicable for violent persons, because of the most time when the offenders commits violent crimes, their criminal intent blights their ability to think rationally of the consequences of wrong acts, like a terrorist who is willing to sacrifice their life for being involved in murder or such a bruter crime, as being aware for the death penalty but they don't have any regret to kill someone, they do not care about that they destroy someone's life and they will also get punishment for that, and despite of all the known facts like they will be punish for the death sentence that does not serve as deterrence for them. So, for such kind of criminals punishment is the only way to prevent crime and society. The deterrence effect of the penalty is not always successful to remove people' intent to remove crime unless the people will not weigh the consequences, the deterrence will not work for them. In contrast, civic education is the one way that can aid to erase the thought from their mind that is about to performing a crime. This problem can be overcome through implanting the right values, the potential offenders can find the alternative methods that can reduce their anger level so that they can be destruct from negative thoughts, that forces them to commit a crime. In this way, the civic education is one of the best way that can reduce the punishments which is right way to stop solutions.

Retributivism philosophy

Retributivism refers to the notions of justice where crime must be met with an appropriate penalization but there are so many cases in which this is not true. In some cases the penalty is blind regarding the causes of the crime and the circumstances of the criminal, hence the penance is not a correct way to stop the crime. Retributivism is a form of legal justice, whenever an offender disobeyed laws then they have to forfeit something in compensate. It is not wrong to say that this law is based on the principle of lex talionis: “an eye for an eye, a life for a life”, whatever the crime carried out by a person they will have to punished proportionally. There is also a benefit as it brings a closure for the victims for a short term while in long trials, this law is not serve the particular solution for any real problems of the offenders. There are so many cases that guilty is accused for such wrong evidence and sentenced to death. For an example, a Chinese lady, her name was Li Yan, she killed her abusive husband for self - defence, after tolerating the brutal domestic violence for four months but she got death penalty, yet it was a case of self – defence. This is because there was a lack of protection of women for domestic violence in China and for that reason the law was only focused on how Li Yan should give her life for life. The punishment is actually failed to do true justice, it is does not care for other's point of view, there is no sympathetic circumstances. In some cases crime is not committed as a plan but it just happened in harsh situations, therefore, it is more important to ensure true justice by paying attention towards the conditions in what circumstances the incidence happened than to just meting out punishment blindly. When the court and law will take interest to solve the social issues behind the transgression that would be a most prominent way to stop peccadillo.

Incapacitation philosophy

Imprisonment dangerous people is not a solution to reform them cause they have are not liable, they commit the crime again. Incarcerating dangerous people to get them off the street and remove them from society helps to prevent future harms by these culprit. The punishment under this law remove their rights of personal liberty, it does not serve to educate and reform the offenders. If once an offender would get free from prison they can easily commit the crime again. For an instance, when Jon Venables released from prison, he again commit a crime for distributing child pornography and because of this, he again the went for imprisonment. There are so many people who have the same mentality to commit a crime and this shows that there is no incarcerating that can change a person in a good person. The incapacitation effect of the punishment clearly fails to serve the purpose. There are many offenders who start to involve in criminal habits since young age, it increases when their parents and school teachers do not pay attention to correct their unethical behaviour and wrong thoughts which reflects in lots of difficulties to reform them after they grown up. Thus, the punishment is not going to change the offenders habits and concepts because after a matured age they are rigid to their nature. So there is only one way to stop punishment is that, parents must give their children a better learning and implanting positive values so that they will not harm anyone and aid to foster good characteristics. Therefore, such cases offers a sense of security to the victims when the culprit got the death penalty.

CONCLUSION

The above report is a discussing about, punishments is the only ways to decrease the crime rate, it has some kinds of punishments that describes different point of views in which punishment is true and false too, because there are several situations and intent in which a crime committed. So, here is a need of a system which can justify the convict rather to have a notion of justice. On the second side of a coin, punishment is the right way to stop crimes at least in justice so that others can be aware to that and do not attempt the same thing, and that will preclude a society in some circumstances.

You may also like to read: 

• Unit 4 Business Law Level 6
• Company and Securities Law

REFERENCES

• Andrews, Donald A., James Bonta, and J. Stephen Wormith. "The risk-need-responsivity (RNR) model: Does adding the good lives model contribute to effective crime prevention?."Criminal Justice and Behavior 38, no. 7 (2011): 735-755.
• Glenn, Andrea L., and Adrian Raine. "Neurocriminology: implications for the punishment, prediction and prevention of criminal behaviour." Nature Reviews Neuroscience 15, no. 1 (2014): 54.
• Lappi-Seppälä, Tapio. "Sentencing and punishment in Finland: the decline of the repressive ideal." Why Punish? How Much? A Reader on Punishment (2011).
• Cullen, Francis T., Cheryl Lero Jonson, and Daniel S. Nagin. "Prisons do not reduce recidivism: The high cost of ignoring science." The Prison Journal 91, no. 3_suppl (2011): 48S-65S.
• Andrews, Donald Arthur, and James Bonta. The psychology of criminal conduct. Routledge, 2014.
• Meyer, Jeffrey, and Pat O’Malley. "12. Missing the punitive turn? Canadian criminal justice,‘balance’, and penal modernism." The new punitiveness (2013): 201.
• Clear, Todd R., and Natasha A. Frost. The punishment imperative: The rise and failure of mass incarceration in America. NYU Press, 2015.
• Santana, Shannon A., Brandon K. Applegate, Bonnie S. Fisher, Jennifer A. Pealer, and Francis T. Cullen. "Public support for correctional rehabilitation in America: Change or consistency?." In Changing attitudes to punishment, pp. 146-165. Willan, 2013.

UPTO50%

Avail The Benefit Today!

To View this & another 50000+ free

Enter Email

Submit